Restricted  Heights 


of 


Buildings 


Board   of  Public   Land   Commissioners 

Milwaukee 

1920 


RESTRICTED  HEIGHTS  OF   BUILDINGS 


Four  years  ago  the  City  of  New  York  broke  away  from  the 
old  established  principle  that  a  man  may  do  with  his  property 
whatever  he  wishes  to  and  accepted  the  more  democratic  prin- 
ciple that  the  general  welfare  of  the  public  precedes  the  rights 
of  individuals.  Great  property  losses,  excessive  congestion  and 
a  serious  menace  to  the  health  of  the  community  resulted  to 
such  an  extent  from  hap-hazard  development  of  real  estate  and 
particularly  because  of  the  increase  in  so-called  skyscrapers  that 
a  proper  coordination  of  many  of  the  factors  in  city  organiza- 
tion became  imperative.  It  became  distressingly  evident  that 
certain  facilities,  such  as  transportation,  street  accommodation, 
etc.,  no  longer  functioned  properly  and  that  the  desperate 
situation  required  an  immediate  remedy.  That  remedy,  too  late 
administered  to  give  complete  relief,  but  yet  effective,  is  known 
MS  the  New  York  Zoning  Resolution. 

To  many  good  citizens  in  almost  all  American  cities  sky  - 
scrapers  were  tangible  evidence  of  material  wealth  and  pros- 
perity and  civic  pride  or  a  conviction  that  high  buildings  were 
desirable  prompted  their  erection  in  large  numbers.  But  the 
plight  in  which  New  York  now  finds  itself  began  to  appear  in 
insipient  form  in  all  coast  and  inland  cities  of  considerable  size 
and  the  necessity  of  checking  its  growth  became  a  recognized 
civic  duty.  Zoning  ordinances  are  therefore  under  considera- 
tion in  a  majority  of  our  larger  cities  and  in  Milwaukee  the 
Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioners  has  for  upwards  of  a  year 
gathered  necessary  data  and  has  prepared  an  ordinance  which 
now  is  ready  for  adoption.  . 

By  virtue  of  this  ordinance,  the  city  is  divided  into  districts 
or  zones  under  three  headings.  The  first  is  the  "use"  districting 
which  is  designed  to  prevent  the  encroachment  of  undesirable 
types  of  buildings  or  uses  to  which  such  buildings  may  be  put 
in  certain  districts,  thus  affording  a  protection  to  property 
values  and  the  general  welfare  of  the  public.  The  second  is  the 
"area"  districting  which  is  designed  to  provide  sufficient  light 
and  air  in  all  types  of  buildings  or  districts.  The  third  is  the 
"height"  districting  which  is  designed  to  provide  sufficient  light 
and  air  and  to  prevent  congestion  and  other  conditions  inimical 
in  the  general  welfare. 

In  the  public  hearings  conducted  by  the  Board  of  Public 
Land  Commissioners,  little  opposition  was  expressed  regarding 

A  cr/tart*  ~t  rk 


the  "use"  and  "area"  provisions  of  the  proposed  ordinance.  But 
to  the  limitation  of  building  heights  considerable  objection  was 
taken.  The  reasons  which  led  the  Board  of  Public  Land  Com- 
missioners to  propose  certain  height  restrictions  were  not 
known  or  understood  and  unsupported  charges  of  impractica- 
bility were  frequently  made.  Because  the  restrictions  are  emi- 
nently practical  and  most  highly  desirable  and  because  a  thor- 
ough understanding  of  the  underlying  reasons  for  such  restric- 
tions is  thought  to  remove  many  if  not  all  objections,  this 
presentation  of  facts  is  offered. 

It  has  been  charged  that  the  comparatively  low  limits  pro 
vided  for  in  the  proposed  ordinance  were  adopted  mainly  be- 
cause of  aesthetic  considerations.  Were  this  true  the  height 
limits  obtaining  in  European  cities  would  have  been  preferred. 
London,  whose  volume  of  business  is  equal  to  or  exceeds  that 
of  New  York,  limits  its  buildings  to  a  height  of  eighty  feet. 
Paris  has  set  a  limit  of  sixty-six  feet,  Berlin  a  limit  of  seventy- 
two  feet,  Edinburgh  sixty  feet,  Hamburg  seventy-eight  feet, 
and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  American  cities  have  erected  sky- 
scrapers for  thirty  odd  years,  no  European  city  lias  chosen  to 
emulate  us  in  that  respect. 

That  concentration  of  workers  is  not  without  value  is  con- 
ceded. But  it  is  only  within  certain  limits,  a  happy  medium  as 
it  were,  that  the  value  so  achieved  is  not  offset  by  serious  dis- 
advantages and  it  is  the  problem  of  a  city  planning  board  to 
determine  where  the  disadvantages  become  serious. 

To  those  who  are  familiar  with  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 
or  for  that  matter,  with  the  business  center  of  any  large  Ameri- 
can city,  it  must  be  evident  that  there  exists  a  definite  relation 
between  street  capacity  and  the  capacity  of  buildings  erected 
on  those  streets.  And  it  must  be  evident  also  that  this  relation 
has  been  so  little  regarded  that  few  downtown  streets  in  Amer- 
ica are  now  adequate  for  the  proper  distribution  of  pedestrians. 
In  New  York,  during  peak  hours,  many  streets  have  become 
quite  useless  to  retail  dealers  because  of  excessive  crowding 
and  in  many  other  cities  the  progress  of  pedestrians  is  so  re- 
tarded as  to  cause  serious  difficulties  in  the  event  of  fire  or 
panic.  There  is  not  a  street  in  lower  New  York  which  will  hold 
100%  of  the  occupants  of  the  buildings  fronting  on  it  and  the 
same  holds  true  of  most  of  the  business  streets  in  other  -larjiv 
cities. 

During  the  peak  hours  there  are  to  be  found  on  Grand  Ave- 
nue between  West  Water  Street  and  Second  Street  and  on  the 


south  side  of  the  street  an  average  of  four  to  six  hundred  pedes- 
trians. Were  this  block  to  hold  a  sixteen  story  office  building 
having  a  frontage  on  the  entire  block  an  addition  of  some  four 
thousand  persons  would  use  this  block  during  these  peak  times. 
And  were  all  the  blocks  from  the  river  to  Sixth  Street  likewise 
covered  with  sixteen  story  office  buildings  a  congestion  would 
result  wrhich  it  would  be  difficult  to  cope  with,  for  the  sidewalk 
capacity  in  any  one  of  these  blocks  is  only  about  nine  hundred 
pci-sous.  Mihvaukee  will,  one  day,  be  a  city  of  a  million  or 
more  inhabitants  and  such  a  development  of  skyscrapers  on 
each  side  of  the  street  is  not  an  impossibility,  if  restrictions  are 
withheld. 

The  problem  of  rapid  transportation  of  passengers  from 
highly  congested  areas  to  outlying  districts  is  always  a  difficult 
and  most  costly  one  to  solve.  It  is  one  of  the  very  undesirable 
by-products  of  unrestricted  building  heights  and  seems  never 
possible  of  a  satisfactory  solution.  It  has  been  stated  by  a 
prominent  city  planning  expert  that  had  New  York  restricted 
its  office  buildings  to  a  reasonable  height  the  street  and  trans- 
portation facilities  would  have  been  adequate  for  several  hun- 
dreds of  years  to  come.  Today,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Lawson 
Purdy,  the  former  tax  commissioner  of  the  great  metropolis, 
the  situation  in  New  York  is  desperate  and  the  future  hopeless. 
Similar  conditions,  though  perhaps  not  so  aggravated,  confront 
Milwaukee  if  skyscrapers  are  permitted  to  be  erected  in  great 
numbers. 

Health 

Isolated  skyscrapers  afford  as  a  rule  air  and  light  to  its 
occupants  in  sufficient  amount  but  often  at  the  expense  of  ad- 
joining properties.  When  many  skyscrapers  are  erected  in  close 
proximity  to  one  another  they  destroy  man}-  of  the  advantages 
enjoyed  by  the  first  of  their  number.  In  some  instances  it  has 
become  necessary  to  abandon  for  office  purposes  lower  floors  be- 
cause of  lack  of  light  and  ventilation  and  by  reducing  rentals 
induce  small  manufacturers  or  storage  concerns  to  occupy  the 
premises.  But  where  such  changes  in  the  type  of  tenants  have 
not  been  effected  increasing  deterioration  in  the  health  of  per 
sons  employed  in  these  buildings  has  been  noted.  Health  is 
sometimes  regarded  as  merely  the  absence  of  disease,  but  as  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Geo.  C.  Whipple,  Professor  of  Sanitary 
Engineering  of  Harvard  University  (New  York  Commission 


report)  that  is  not  a  complete  conception  of  health.  "Health 
is  something  positive  and  involves  physique  and  vitality  and 
it  is  mental  as  well  as  physical.'' 

Dr.  Gustav  F.  Boehme,  Jr.,  neurologist,  testified  to  the  rapid 
increase  in  nervous  disorders  and  troubles  and  to  the  very 
direct  relation  between  such  increase  and  the  present  high  build- 
ings and  hap-hazard  development  and  the  congestion,  noise  and 
confusion  incident  thereto.  The  necessity  for  reducing  the  stress 
and  strain  of  city  life  is  becoming  more  and  more  apparent. 
Public  health  and  vitality  must  be  conserved  rather  than  being 
abused  and  exhausted. 

Fire  Dangers 

That  fireproof  buildings  are  proof  against  danger  in  a  gen- 
eral conflagration  has  been  amply  disproved  in  the  catastrophes 
which  visited  Baltimore  and  San  Francisco  many  years  ago. 
While  their  destruction  may  not  be  complete  they  and  their 
contents  are  sufficiently  subject  to  fire  damage  to  cause  panic 
and  thereby  may  cause  congestion  in  the  streets  sufficient  to 
seriously  hamper  the  work  of  the  fire  department.  Streets 
densely  packed  with  crowds  of  people  that  quickly  form  in  the 
event  of  fire,  render  the  movement  of  fire  apparatus  difficult 
and  the  outpouring  of  large  numbers  of  people  from  nearby 
buildings  is  more  than  likely  to  result  in  tragic  consequences. 
It  is  more  than  foolhardy  to  ignore  such  possibilities  by  piling 
story  on  story  and  further  extending  the  danger  zone. 

The  fire  department  cannot  fight  a  fire  from  the  outside 
more  than  85  feet  to  100  feet  above  the  ground.  Above  that 
they  must  rely  on  stand  pipes  in  the  building.  If  the  stand 
pipe  does  not  work  or  if  the  fire  is  so  near  the  stand  pipe  as  to 
render  its  use  impracticable  the  fire  department  becomes  help- 
less. No  fatal  fire  in  a  modern  high  building  has  yet  occurred 
but  it  is  not  an  impossibility.  Though  fires  in  tall  buildings 
may  be  controlled,  panics  cannot  be. 

Mr.  Edward  S.  Devlin,  Superintendent  of  the  New  York 
Life  Insurance  Co.,  testified  before  the  New  York  Commission 
that  insurance  companies  recognized  the  additional  hazard  at- 
tending so-called  skyscrapers  by  increasing  their  rates  with 
progressive  stories. 

Mr.  Edmund  Dwight,  President  of  the  Casualty  Insurance 
Co.,  in  pleading  for  lower  buildings,  testified  as  follows:  "I 
desire  to  put  myself  on  record  as  believing  that  the  time  lias 


come  in  New  York  when  there  should  be  a  mo>st  rigid  limitation 
to  the  height  of  buildings  and  that  very  high  buildings  con- 
stitute a  greatly  added  menace  and  peril  to  the  community/' 

Mr.  William  Guerin,  Acting  Chief  .Bureau  of  Fire  Preven- 
tion  (1913)  testified  that  for  New  York  a  height  limit  of  150 
feet  could  be  supported  as  a  reasonable  regulation  under  the 
police  powers  of  the  State  and  Mr.  Edward  Hardy,  representing 
the  New  York  Fire  Insurance  Exchange,  held  a  limit  of  125 
feet  to  be  satisfactory. 

Sewage  and  water  supply  problems  are  also  greatly  com- 
plicated by  the  presence  of  very  tall  buildings  through  the  over 
taxing  of  their  capacities. 

Land  Valuation 

It  has  been  held  that  skyscrapers  are  necessitated  by  the 
high  valuation  placed  on  downtown  property  by  tax  assessors. 
This  contention  is  not  borne  out  by  the  records  of  the  local 
tax  commissioner's  oMce.  The  increase  in  assessed  valuations 
of  downtown  properties  is  on  a  par  with  increases  in  other 
parts  of  the  city  where  skyscrapers  are  little  likely  to  be  erected. 
The  effect  of  skyscrapers  on  adjoining  properties  seems  to  be 
detrimental  rather  than  otherwise  because  of  the  curtailment 
of  light  and  air,  as  the  attached  letter  from  Mr.  E.  H.  Bodden, 
Milwaukee's  Tax  Commissioner,  illustrates.  It  is*  a  condition 
common  to  all  large  cities.  In  New  York  many  hundred  thou- 
sands of  dollars  are  lost  to  the  city  because  of  the  lowered 
assessed  valuation  of  costly  skyscrapers  due  to  loss  of  air  and 
light  when  such  buildings  were  crowded  one  next  to  the  other. 
In  taking  to  themselves  a  majority  of  office  tenants,  skyscrapers 
further  retard  a  general  development  of  property  for  many 
years,  giving  the  city  a  ragged,  wild  and  provincial  appearance. 

A  Natural  Limitation. 

As  the  architects  of  Milwaukee  have  asked  that  a  limit  of 
185  feet  be  considered  for  downtown  properties,  it  is  but  just 
to  them  to  state  why  a  limit  of  125  feet  is  preferable. 

Any  height  limit  exceeding  the  street  width  is  a  concession 
to  American  precedent  and  what  are  thought  to  be  business  re- 
quirements. From  the  standpoint  of  public  health,  congestion 
and  fire  dangers,  the  height  limitations  set  by  European  cities 
would  be  preferable  by  far.  But  in  the  opinion  of  leading 


architects  and  others  who  testified  before  the  New  York  Heights 
of  Buildings'  Commission,  a  skyscraper  is  not  a  source  of  great 
profit  at  best.  The  average  net  income  appears  to  be  in  the 
neighborhood  of  only  3%%, -very  few  paying  as  high  as  6%. 
These  architects  also  testified  that  a  ten  or  twelve  story  build- 
ing has  reached  the  logical  limit  because  the  cost  per  cubic  foot 
increases  arithmetically  with  the  increase  of  stories  beyond 
that  point.  The  attached  letters  and  telegrams  from  promi- 
nent architects  support  this  contention. 

A  limitation  of  125  feet  is  therefore  not  a  hardship  on  prop- 
erty owners,  and  though  a  concession  as  above  stated,  it  will 
tend  to  keep  in  hand  the  dangers  incident  to  groups  of  sky- 
scrapers. For  such  reasons  Boston  set  a  limit  of  125  feet  in 
1911,  Washington  a  limit  of  110  feet  and  New  York  a  limit  of 
125  feet  for  5th  Avenue.  A  similar  limit  for  Milwaukee  seems 
to  be  well  within  reason. 

In  districts  other  than  the  downtown  district  it  is  desirable 
to  approach  the  street  width  limit  but  as  a  concession  again 
certain  streets  were  given  approximately  a  1%  street  width 
limit.  The  exact  heights  were  made  to  conform  to  height  limits 
prescribed  by  the  State  building  code  for  various  types  of  con- 
struction. 


CHICAGO,  October  14,  1920. 

Mr.  Wm.  H.  Schuchardt, 

Member  Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioners, 
Mihrankee,  Wis. 

DEAR  SIR  : 

Pursuant  to  your  telegram  of  the  13th  inst,  I  am  pleased 
to  reply  that  I  found  that  ten  or  twelve  story  buildings  were 
more  economical  to  build  than  buildings  of  double  that  height 
or  higher,  prior  to  1915. 

My  firm  built  ten  and  twelve  story  hotels  for  45  cents  and 
office  buildings  for  40  cents  per  cubic  foot.  At  that  time  the 
cubic  foot  cost  of  the  whole  building  increased  about  1%  cents 
with  each  additional  story  and  the  rentable  area  of  each  floor 
was  decreased  by  the  necessity  for  more  elevators  and  larger 
light  courts. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  a  limit  of  125  feet,  such  as  accepted 
for  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York,  is  a  benefit  to  the  community.  I 
am  of  the  belief  that  New  York  permits  greater  heights  with 
proper  set-backs. 

Trusting  that  my  reply  is  clear,  I  am 

Yours  very  truly, 

RICHARD  E.  SCHMIDT. 


P.  S.  The  above-mentioned  increase  of  1%  cents,  increases 
in  an  arithmetical  progression,  i.  e.,  41%,  43,  441^,^6  and  so- 
forth. 

R.  E.  S. 


ST.  Louis,  Mov  10  A   Oct.  14,  1920. 
Wm.  H.  Schuchardt, 

Care  Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioners, 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 

It  undoubtedly  costs  more  to  erect  aiid  operate  tall  build- 
ings. Twelve  story  buildings  are  better  for  the  owner  and  also 
the  city  as  a  height  limit  distributes  values  over  greater  areas. 
Restrictions  of  height  are  beneficial  to  cities.  New  York's  limit 
is  two  and  one-half  times  the  width  of  the  streets,  St.  Louis  has 
a  zoning  ordinance  which  limits  heights  in  downtown  districts 
to  one  hundred  fifty  feet.  The  effect  of  such  restrictions  will 
prevent  traffic  congestion,  enhance  the  value  of  buildings  and 
improves  the  health  of  occupants.  Milwaukee  would  be  thor- 
oughly justified  in  insisting  upon  reasonable  restrictions  and 
will  find  that  the  courts  recognize  the  value  of  such  laws. 

JOHN  LAWRENCE  MAURAN. 


YORK,  N.  Y.,  AM  Oct.  15,  1920. 
Wm.  H.  Schuchardt, 

Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioners, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Building  ten  to  twelve  stories  in  nineteen  thirteen  costing 
forty  to  fifty  cents  cubic  foot  would  have  cost  about  ten  to 
fifteen  cents  more  for  twenty  stories.  Strongly  believe  one  hun- 
dred twenty-five  feet  should  be  maximum  height. 

THOMAS  HASTINGS. 


NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  PM  6  15,  Oct.  14, 1920. 
William  H.  Schuchardt, 

Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioner*, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

In  general  cost  per  cubic  foot  increases  with  height  of  build- 
ing. In  NewT  York  the  law  requires  much  more  complete  fire- 
proofing  in  buildings  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  high  thus 
greatly  increasing  cost.  Increased  size  of  courts  as  height  in- 
creases reduces  area  of  upper  floors  and  makes  them  relatively 
more  expensive.  Height  limit  one  hundred  .twenty-five  feet 
Fifth  Avenue  undoubtedly  benefit  to  community  but  sti'ong 
movement  now  on  foot  to  reduce  limit  above  Fifty-ninth  Street 
to  seventy -five  feet  to  protect  against  apartment  houses. 

BFRT  L.  PENXER.  of  McICim  Mead  &  White. 


NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  PM  5  43,  Oct.  14,  1920. 

Wm.  H.  Schuchardt, 

Care  Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioners, 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 

I  agree  with  statement  of  relative  cost  of  buildings  as  stated 
in  report  of  New  York  Commission  and  I  believe  that  limiting 
height  of  buildings  on  Fifth  Avenue  is  a  great  benefit  to  the  city. 

ARNOLD  W.  BRTJNNER. 


NUMBER  OF  BUILDINGS  IN  DOWNTOWN  DISTRICT 

Bounded  North  by  Chestnut,  South  by  River  and  Chicago  Street,  East 
by  Jefferson,  West  by  Eighth  Street. 

No.  of  Stories  No.  of  Buildings 

1  549 

2  934 

3  321 

4  160 

5  45 

6  42 

7  1J) 

8  16 

9  2 
10                         2 
11 

12  1 

13 


15 
.16 


October  G,  192(1. 
Ch'on/c  F.  Siaal,  />'*(/.,  Secretary', 

Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioner^ 

Milwaukee,  IT/.s. 
DEAR  SIR: 

I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  2d  and  telegram  of  the 
same  date  inviting  me  to  go  to  Milwaukee  with  Mr.  Bassett  to 
defend  your  height  limit  of  one  hundred  twenty-five  feet.  I 
should  greatly  like  to  do  this  but  I  cannot  get  away.  Mr. 
Bassett  and  I  talked  about  the  matter  yesterday  and  I  think 
he  will  go. 

Mr.  Bassett  and  I  are  of  one  mind  as  to  the  limit  you  pro- 
pose— that  it  is  as  high  as  you  should  have.  I  should  not  permit 
any  such  height  at  all  if  I  could  help  it  nor*  would  I  permit  so 
great  a  height  over  a  large  area.  I  remember  Milwaukee  fairly 
well  and  I  should  think  that  there  is  a  very  small  part  of  the 
city  where  it  is  at  all  necessary  to  allow  buildings  one  hundred 
twenty-five  feet  high.  I  have  no  objection  to  towers  if  they  cover 
not  more  than  twenty  per  cent,  of  the  lot.  Ordinarily  I  should 
say  that  no  building  should  exceed  the  width  of  the  street  in 
height  nor  should  any  building  exceed  sixty-five  feet  in  height 
though  I  think  I  should  permit  set-backs  an  increased  height 
of  one  foot  for  each  foot  the  wall  is  set  back  from  the  building 
line. 

The  maximum  height  allowed  in  Paris  is  sixty-five  feet  and 
a  fraction  below  the  cornice  line.  Above  the  cornice  line  a 
mansard  is  allowed  which  is  a  little  higher  than  an  angle  of 
forty-five  degrees.  The  height  of  the  mansard  varies  with  the 
width  of  the  street.  On  a  very  wide  street  it  is  considerably 
higher  than  a/orty-five  degree  angle.  The  point  is,  Paris  is  a 
city  which  is  never  more  than  sixty-five  feet  to  the  cornice  line. 
Paris  is  a  beautiful  city.  It  is  a  densely  populated  city.  The? 
average  height  of  the  buildings  is  high  compared  with  the 
Borough  of  Manhattan,  City  of  New  York,  where  a  few  years 
ago  the  height  was  less  than  four  stories,  but  it  is  a  uniform 
city.  Every  city  in  the  United  States  that  allows  heights  of 
more  than  six  stories  will  in  time  have  trouble  with  street 
widths.  The  future  of  Manhattan  is  desperate.  We  did  the 
best  we  could  but  what  we  did  was  entirely  insufficient  to  -give 
us  street  width  enough  for  the  future. 

If  you  desire  to  quote  me  at  all  you  cannot  make  it  too 
strong  that  any  height  above  street  width  is  a  concession  to 
existing  conditions  and  must  be  confined  absolutely  to  the  area 
which  contains  buildings  exceeding  that  height. 

Yours  truly, 

LAW  SON  I'runv. 


October  8,  1920. 

Board  of  Public  Land  Commissioners, 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 

GENTLEMEN  : 

Answering  your  questionable  of  October  6th,  1920,  "Does 
the  height,  area  and  use  of  buildings  erected  in  any  locality 
affect  the  assessable  value  of  adjoining  property ?"  will  say 
tli [it  my  annual  instructions  to  the  assessors  of  this  department 
recognizes  the  fact  that  it  does  and  the  assessment  rolls  show 
numerous  instances  where  allowances  have  been  made  upon 
adjoining  property  due  to  the  detrimental  effect  of  such  build- 
ings. One  of  the  late  cases  in  point  is  the  Abbot  building,  sit- 
uated on  the  N.  W.  corner  of  Milwaukee  and  Mason  Streets, 
just  east  of  the  Milwaukee  Athletic  Club.  Mr.  Abbot  appeared 
before  the  Board  and  pointed  out  the  fact  that,  due  to  the  ex- 
treme height  of  the  club  building,  the  five  lower  floors  on  the 
west  side  of  the  Abbot  building  have  been  greatly  affected,  mak- 
ing it  necessary  to  use  artificial  light  throughout  the  day  and 
thereby  materially  reducing  the  revenue  derived  from  said 
building.  The  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  situa- 
tion reported  back  to  the  Board  that  an  allowance  of  |25,000 
should  be  made,  and  the  same  was  ratified  by  the  Board.  Numer- 
ous allowances  have  been  made  in  residence  districts  due  to 
apartment  houses,  public  garages  and  other  objectionable  build- 
ings being  .placed  therein. 

My  personal  views  on  zoning  is  that  it  is  a  step  in  the  right 
direction  which  should  have  been  taken  years  ago.  1  heartily 
agree  with  Mr.  Lawson  Purely,  former  Tax  Commissioner  of 
NVw  York  City,  in  his  conclusion  on  zoning,  "Zoning,  properly 
conceived  and  carried  out,  constitutes  not  only  a  definite  recog- 
nition of  equality  in  ownership,  but  an  important  protection 
of  taxable  values." 

Respectfully  yours, 
E.  II.  HODDEN, 

TAX  COMMISSIONER, 


THIS 


DUE  ON  THE  LA 
STAMPED  BELOW 


DATE 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


NOV    5 

n  c  o  1  Q  onnft 

UtU  1  o  £UUll 

i  fl  ft.  t      A    *V    A-A-A-4 

JAN  0  7  2001 

* 

,•        -                            j.                                                   r      .                 <t*" 

»  j^-^»  -•  --***—  _v  '  jp.S'i  „;" 

;.? 

t   NOV  1?  200ft 

Ik 

^"S 

' 

LD  21-100m-7,'33 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y 
PAT.JAN.21.W8 


"r 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


